NASA fires Rocketplane

Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:55 PM by Alan Boyle

Rocketplane Kistler

An artist's conception shows Rocketplane
Kistler's K-1 rocket blasting off.

NASA has terminated its agreement with Rocketplane Kistler, one of the winners of a $500 million spaceship competition, and is reopening its competition for the $174.7 million that the company lost out on. The winner of that renewed competition would have to demonstrate the ability to deliver cargo to the international space station, just as Rocketplane Kistler was required to do.

The termination came a month after NASA put Rocketplane Kistler on notice that it was in danger of losing out on further money because it hadn't met the required financial and technical milestones. The company was supposed to raise $500 million in private investment by May, but the company didn't hit that goal - and as a result stopped development work on its K-1 launch vehicle.

The official notice following up on that warning was delivered to the Oklahoma-based company this afternoon, said Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office at NASA's Johnson Space Center.

Rocketplane's chairman, George French, said in a statement that he was "deeply disappointed in NASA's decision today."

"I am very proud of the technical progress that our superb team has made over the last year," he said. "Through August of this year, we received glowing reviews from NASA on the technical progress we are making on the K-1 vehicle, including cargo modules being developed specially for NASA. On the financial side, I believe we received more commitments from private investors to finance the K-1 program than any purely commercial space venture to date."

George French III, Rocketplane's business development associate as well as the chairman's son, told me that NASA's effort to promote space privatization was "a good program."

"We're very thankful for the opportunity to be involved, and we do hope to be involved sometime in the future," he said. "NASA needs an option to get privatization into space."

Rocketplane said it was still reviewing the details of NASA's decision.

After Rocketplane won the funding from NASA in August 2006, the company reorganized itself into two units: Rocketplane Kistler, which is focusing on the K-1; and Rocketplane Global, which is developing a completely different suborbital space plane. Today's action does not directly affect Rocketplane Global's operations, and in fact that unit is due to announce a new space plane design next week at the X Prize Cup in New Mexico.

NASA already had paid $32.1 million to Rocketplane Kistler for meeting earlier milestones. The company won't have to give that money back, but it will lose out on the remaining $174.7 million that was set aside for future milestones.

Lindenmoyer told reporters that Rocketplane Kistler could continue to work on the K-1 for NASA on an unfunded basis. It could also try to regain NASA funding in the renewed competition, along with other would-be contractors, he said.

"We would welcome a new proposal from them to be evaluated against other proposals from industry," Lindenmoyer said.

NASA needs to have a replacement system for resupplying the space station by 2010, when the space shuttle fleet is due to be retired. The $500 million effort - known as the Commercial Orbital Transportation System program, or COTS - was designed to encourage low-cost options for that resupply. NASA has other options as well, including other countries' space transports (such as the Russian Soyuz or Europe's ATV) and eventually the agency's own Orion crew transportation vehicle.

The Orion is being developed under a multibillion-dollar contract with Lockheed Martin, and is due to enter service in the 2014 time frame.

NASA's agreements with Rocketplane Kistler and SpaceX, the other company to receive money through the COTS program, called for resupply capability to be demonstrated by 2010. But Lindenmoyer said the winners of second-round funding would not necessarily have to hit that 2010 goal.

"We have our need in that time frame," he told reporters. "It's not a requirement."

Several companies are waiting in the wings to vie for the leftover $174.7 million, including Transformational Space and PlanetSpace, as well as SpaceDev, Spacehab and Constellation Systems International. Lindenmoyer said other companies would be welcome to compete as well. That could include Rocketplane Kistler as well as SpaceX, which has hit all its milestones so far, he said.

Lindenmoyer said the full requirements for the second round would be issued Monday, and proposals would be due 30 days from the date of the announcement. NASA would select the winner or winners "as quickly as we can," he said.

"We hope by the first part of next year, 2008, no later than the first quarter of 2008 we should be in a position to complete the evaluation," Lindenmoyer said.

Lindenmoyer said NASA's parting of the ways with Rocketplane Kistler should not be seen as a failure for the COTS philosophy of encouraging private enterprise in space. The program is working "exactly the way it was designed," he said.

"This is not a traditional NASA program, so therefore, recognizing that level of risk that we are undertaking, and the potential payoff, it is not a surprise. ... We had a quantifiable risk, and it was mitigated by the fact that we were able to make a decision early on in the program," he said.

Lindenmoyer said the prospect of lowering the cost of spaceflight - first for cargo deliveries and eventually for crews - was worth the financial risk.

"This is incredibly important to NASA and the nation, so absolutely we will stick with it," he said.

This item was last updated at 6:24 p.m. ET.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Governments love to let free enterprise have at each other for a while...see what they can pick up...gather and sort the data...sayonara free enterprise losers!
that's the way other things work...why not with space?
it's not funding...it's seed money...
look what happened by letting the www develop itself...the most incredible example of successful self promotion ever...all from free enterprise turned loose...let's see what happens with it now...

steve smyth lynn ma (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:13 PM)

NASA is dropping the ball with regards to space technology. Space is still too difficult to depend upon private companies for major tasks such as resupplying the space station. These efforts must be fully funded at the federal level. In 1970 NASA had a better plan for space infrastructure than the current non-plan. At that time the goal was to put a man on Mars by the end of the century. In 1970, NASA planned nuclear transfer vehicles to the Moon and space tugs for ferrying men and supplies to the Lunar surface. Now it is 2007 almost 40 years later and the goal is to return to the moon by 2020 (if then)using Apollo era technology. Cheaper is not better. It is NASA's responsibility to plead their case to Congress. This latest gaffe, along with the recent admission by the head of NASA that China will beat us back to the Moon, underscores the failure of NASA's leadership. Perhaps it is time to review the lessons of the Apollo program instead of rushing heedlessly to repeat the mistakes.

Erik Witz, Rolesville, NC (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:05 PM)

Why are we wasting all this money to go into outer space when we have much more pressing concrens on Earth. Why don't we devote all the resources wasted on putting people in space just to say we can do it & spend the resources on developing large scale nuclear fusion power, solve the countries geopolitical energy problems as well as global warming & then take on space which would be much easier with fusion propulsion

p scully (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:42 PM)

p scully, I will tell you why - because the oil industry owns the government right now.

Marty, Carson City, NV (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:05 PM)

P Scully,

Search on polywell fusion and Dr. Robert Bussard.

Binary thinking is hobgoblin of a small mind. Why can't we do BOTH?

Mike Puckett, Webster Springs, WV (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:49 PM)

In 2 years we're grounded, hitchhiking w/Russians - tourist class. None of these designs will be ready. Privatizing space has worked as well as privatizing the war. There is plenty of incentive for private industry to get into space, this isn’t an engineering problem, it’s a financing problem. That’s the job of the government, only it has the really big bucks to make it happen w/o these kinds of holdups. Going to the moon? We can’t get off the ground. The Orion project is designed to fail, Apollo based, huge multifunction system, long horizon. They’ll nickel and dime it to death. Cut backs here, delays there, consequences years later – just like the space station still nowhere near what it was envisioned to be. NASA leadership is a part of Washington leadership both need new direction, how about the space plane Ronald Reagan proposed?

chuck bowers, seattle, wash. (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:51 PM)

I dunno...it's mystifying that humans haven't conquered sub-orbital global transportation yet. Or are even anywhere near it. The SST dream died and is really baffling to me. Why is supersonic transport on a large scale so seemingly unattainable when they are hell bent on going to Mars? Are we destined to sub-sonic transport for the rest of this century??

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:16 PM)

p scully,
We aren't wasting money on space - The simple fact is, without investing off-planet resources, we can't solve the earth's problems.

Erik,
I would argue its not technology that Nasa is dropping the ball, but opperations. Nasa has always put the idea that we need more advanced technology to get cheap acesss, without looking at the whole picture. Many of the NewSpace companies have recognized this, and Nasa would do well to embrace them.

I am concerned, however, about the new competition - Nasa still isn't committing to buying anything that gets developed. That will scare at least some investors away. If Nasa were to committ to buying services, assuming the vehicle successfully demonstrated its capabilities, then I think more investors would come.

Unfortantly, I don't believe Nasa will do that.

Aaron Oesterle, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:19 PM)

NASA - about $18 billion year
IRAQ War - About $200 billion a year, and that's over and above what we normally spend on the military.

Which one do you think we should cut back funding on to devote more resources to our "more pressing concerns on Earth"?

JustMe AndMyThoughts (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:37 PM)

Because of the advance's of science, we are now aware that the human race is doomed if we stay on earth long term. Sure, we messed the place up, and we will do our best to learn from our mistakes.

To survive, the human race needs to go to space and move to other planets or planetary bodies.

Based on the our achievements so far, we will be able to first use the moon, then Mars, and then move out to the Kuiper belt and it's resorcees.

I am sure, when the human race first started exploring and moving out of Africa to other parts of the planet, there were those who said "why don't you stay here and fix this place up?"

This program is very good because government programs, by nature, are risk adverse, slow, expensive and management top-heavy. Free enterprise has always gotten us there "faster, farther, and cheaper.

Lastly, I have no desire to see the USA as a second rate or third rate power when other countries take the "high ground".

Robert Hoenshell, San Clemente, California (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:40 PM)

I thought I had read that the world wide web was originated by the armed forces as a way to integrate individual computers into a unified "free" association. Unregulated space development will only result in disaster after disaster until misfits are weeded out, the epitome of 'capitalism' itself. The people will revolt as disasters accumulate on the TV screen or will reject further efforts unless government in some way endorses the efforts. Government, NASA, is the one offering the big money prizes now,in essence telling private enterprise to either put up or shut up, take the risk if you want to share the wealth. Kistler could have offered prizes itself for successful programs, but may have been outclassed by NASA.

p scully is only fooling himself in thinking that space exploration money would ever be 'spent' on earth-bound problems like poverty or energy substitution when those and similar situations are maintained in status quo by the Military-Industrial complex (Eisenhower warned us about them, remember?) and Big Oil, Big Ag and other vested interests.

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:44 PM)

Its a shame that its taken this long to finally get back to space exploration. A lot of people in congress feel that its a waste of money and that we should be focusing on issues here on earth which I disagree with. if we were not meddling in other countries business so much we would have more money for this program and less problems to deal with in the first place. its disappointing that NASA is having to 'outsource' to keep the ball rolling but at the same time this will revolutionized space travel just like public access to the www revolutionized e-business and porno.
on a side note, I fully agree with p scully about the fusion reactors but what many scientists are saying now is that an element known as helium 3 is a key part of creating fusion in a lab or future reactor. while it dose not form naturally on earth we can create He3 but it is far more expensive and difficult to make then what would be cost effective. but it is found in large quantities on the moon. Many of these companies that are paving the way now will no doubt pair up with mining companies in the 30 years or so.

Doug Graham, Coral Springs, FL (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 12:26 AM)

Dollar for dollar, spending money on space exploration has historically been one of the BEST returns on our tax money. Do you have ANY idea of the space spinoffs in your home? How about the computer you typed that reply on, scully? Bet you've got a smoke detector too? Maybe check your closet for some clothes with fancy fibers? Odds are pretty good that if you want a non-existent technology like "large scale nuclear fusion power" the best way to really get it is going to be "wasting money to go into outer space." Cancelling the Apollo Program at the height of its glory was one of the most economically foolish decisions our very penny-wise, pound-foolish congress has ever made.

M, Baton Rouge, LA (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 1:32 AM)

1. As bureaucratically hidebound as NASA has become since its inception, its failures are largely Congressional failures, and ultimately the failure of the U.S. public to get excited enough to support exploration outward into space. Like past investments in these programs, the financial and technical rewards will far surpass the investment.

For the last 50 years, commercial fusion power has been just around the corner, with large expenditures that have no ROI. One has to explore the probability that the theoretical foundations are flawed, and it is not going to come to pass. The current literature being published is essentially no different than the text I bought in 1958. I have found only one theorist in that time that has had the honesty to admit that an environment energetic enough to fuse hydrogen to helium is also energetic enough to allow helium to devolve back to hydrogen. Not to mention that all those magnetic plasma bottles are almost as leaky as they were 50 years ago.

All politicians, and many scientists should read the book, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years" by Singer and Avery, which suggests that Global Warming is cyclic, and not directly caused by nor affected by our current technologies. They should also read the article, "Global Warming Is 300-Year-Old News" from the Wall Street Journal of January 18, 2000.

W. Sitze, New Mexico (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 3:06 AM)

There is much inovation and invention that comes with a funded functioning program such as the space program. Your ball point pen for example was developed in the early space program days, as well as almost every battery that drives every electronic gizmo that you have. To spend on a space program is not a waste, but a real investment applicable to concerns present on earth.
Recreated, controlled, sustained fusion may not be possible in a terra based system, it may require a physical system that only exists where thus far sustained fusion is known to occur, outer space. I agree responsible usage of funding is important when it comes to space research, but to suggest that it is a waste of money is ludicrous, and ignorant of the facts.

Charles Eck, Sacramento, CA (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 4:00 AM)

I think deep space robotic exploration is worth every penny. However, would someone explain exactly what we have gotten from our "investment" in ISS? They don't even have a rotating module for gravity yet. Now we plan to return to the moon by ourselves? What happened to all that international cooperation? p scully is right.

Joe, Mesquite TX (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 8:10 AM)

place an object on the Moon...anything...doesn't matter...offer a significant prize...like Google shares...to bring it back...hype the livin' b'Jaysus out of it via www...no restraints on how...watch what happens...

steve smyth lynn ma (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 10:09 AM)

Anyone else think that the decision to retire the shuttle by 2010 was a bit short sighted, especially when the replacement vehicle (if you can call it that) is still on the drawing board? 2014? 2016-2017 is more likely. Yet another brilliant decision by the puppetmasters pulling GWB's strings! Hopefully our next president will have a bit more common sense and give the shuttle program a stay of execution until Orion is fully operational.

Jim M, Atlanta GA (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 10:09 AM)

To p scully - we have already spent untold hundreds of billions of dollars on social programs right here on earth, and for what? We have nothing positive to show for that at all, besides a lot more people with an entitlement attitude.

W. Sitze - I have read both the book and the article you cite, and many more besides. My feeling is that the basic assumptions behind those scholarly works are incomplete, in that they do not take into account the amplification of the cyclical effects by the impact of the human civilization. Heat is a byproduct of civilization - you simply cannot get away from it. 1500, or even 300 years, ago, we did not have the population we have now, along with the attendant infrastructure. By my (admittedly) simplistic calculations, the good professors are off at least an order of magnitude in their conclusions.

Mike, Kentucky (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 10:42 AM)

We must not stagnate is the purest reason to continue to fund space exploration. We have stagnated as an exploring country since Apollo. Man's curiosity is what drives innovation. New technologies will come from our desire to explore the moon and Mars. Quite possibly a new fuel source in Helium-3 mined from the lunar surface.

Robert, Baltimore, Maryland (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 11:15 AM)

It was a mistake to fund RPK from the beginning. How many times can the K1 launch vehicle be killed? NASA should have either awarded the contact solely to SpaceX or both SpaceX and a company that hasn’t proven they are incompetent.

If NASA wants to program to be successful they need to give the remainder of the COTS money to SpaceX and extend the agreement to also demonstrate transport of crew to and from the ISS. SpaceX is the only company that can feasibly achieve these goals within the next 3-5 years. Diluting the prize money by spreading it out will not only slow companies like SpaceX down but it could potentially kill this entire initiative (if none of the companies end up successful). Like them or not, SpaceX has strong private financial backing and has hit every single COTS milestone to date.

This is my generations Apollo program.

Anonymous (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 2:09 PM)

You all have been watching too much Stargate. Give the government the money from the Iraq war and NASA to fix earth's problems, and give the rest back to the people. These unnecessary projects are foolish!

Jay Tibbs, Minneapolis MN (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 3:56 PM)

"Space is still too difficult to depend upon private companies for major tasks such as resupplying the space station. These efforts must be fully funded at the federal level."

That 'full funding' you refer to, would only go to one aerospace company or another that most people have already heard of (rather than one that most haven't yet), quite probably in in the form of a fixed-price contract that tends to reward delay and non-performance.

RpK, at least, gets nothing for providing nothing. That's as it should be. Let someone else step up and get paid only for results.

Frank Glover (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 4:51 PM)

maybe the Orion project of the 50's-60's should be revisited,now with the abudance of nukes sitting on shelves collecting dust. How's about a version of Julles Vern's idea. Except bore a deep hole in the ground. Place the nukes (or nukes, the original orion project's estimates were up to 700, being spat out the base as the huge steel bullet of 400 tons accelerated up thru the atmosphere) This suggestion wouldn't allow for any atmospheric bursts, but all the "devices" could/would be detonated deep down in the "breach". An added feature might be to have a high speed shutter at the exit end , and pump out as much air as possible ,in order to reduce/eliminate air resistance. Thought out, possibly those previous plans of sending up huge loads (in one shot, pardon the pun) might be feasible. Or possibly once launched and safely clear of earth, then eject the necessary devices for the journey to Mars, ( in a lot shorter trip). If I'm correct, calculations were that near light speed was being bantered about by the theorists of the day.Maybe they'd still be interested. Just food for thought.

Mike M Kamloops B.C. Canada (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 6:37 PM)

I think you missed my point Frank. The point is that America has been complacent for too long and is currently in grave danger of losing space supremacy. This incident is just one symptom in an overall sickness. The Federal government created the problem you refer to by allowing the consolidation of the major players, Northrop, Grumman, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, etc. Now we are stuck with a bunch of second stringers. If Rocketplane can't make it, do you really think Transformational Space, Spacehab, etc. can? I agree with Chuck, Emery and Doug. The Orion is a joke. An oversized Apollo capsule perched on top of a shuttle SRB? Come on, we can do better.

Erik Witz, Rolesville, NC. (Sent Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:25 AM)

Dear Alan Boyle, et.al.,

What irks me about this story is how little question is being raised over where the tens of millions RpK got, went. They spent at least $20 million - what happened to that?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but there should be a public accounting. I'm disappointed there is so little skepticism out there that no one asks that question about their tax monies.

Maybe we're so blase about millions of dollars being thrown around that it seems "shruggable". But I sure wonder how a small team goes through $20 million or more in roughly a year, and has nothing to show for it.

Still not accusing anyone of anything: It brings to mind a great way to make a personal fortune. Win contracts to produce something, fail, and make a few tens of millions in the process. In RpK's case, NASA makes it clear that they can do it all over again if they wish.

What's to prevent this program from being abused in that way?

I've written pointed articles about Musk and SpaceX, but I will say that at least they've got hardware flying, and have a decent chance to make a go of it if they survive their own learning curve. We really haven't seen that kind of success since Orbital (Sciences) and their Pegasus in 1990.

Greg Zsidisin, Casper, Wyoming (Sent Saturday, October 20, 2007 3:04 PM)

Many "earth problems" have been "fixed" using technology that was developed by NASA and the military. How is giving the money back to the people going to help "fix" earth problems? Your tax dollars are being spent by the military and NASA to perform R&D (research and development) which results in the development of new technology that facilitates advancement in many fields (including the treatment and prevention of diseases). I really can’t comprehend the mindset that we shouldn’t spend tax dollars on R&D or exploration but should instead give it back to the people or dump it into healthcare or social security – don’t you see how this is equivalent to treating a headache with Tylenol instead of treating the brain tumor causing the headache? Using this same analogy, the government could spend 1 billion dollars buying and distributing Tylenol to every citizen in an effort to “fix” the problem or they could spend that same 1 billion and find a cure for brain cancer. The underlying point here is that money is not going to “fix” our earth problems. If the government devoted much more money to R&D and exploration the quality of life of every human being would increase significantly more than if they spent that money by “giving it back to the people”. I guess the average person just isn’t capable of seeing the big picture which is why NASA’s budget is constantly being cut and people question their value. Like any government agency, NASA is plagued by bureaucracy and inefficiency but they financially support the RD activities that, in the long run, better our society. Private industry is in the game to make money, not perform R&D. If they don’t make money they don’t survive. Do you really think drug companies want to cure diseases? Or do you think the oil companies want to decrease emissions and gasoline usage? Think about it logically, what successful business would EVERY set out to reduce profits? It’s unfortunate but this is the world we live in. On the other hand and using these same examples, since the military is a large purchaser of gasoline and certainly wants to keep troops alive and disease free they are very willing to spend money trying to make machines more efficient and develop vaccines and medical treatments. I hope I made my point clear. R&D of technology is the single most important activity to the survival and sustainability of our species. And I’m not talking about moving to Mars, I’m talking about right here living on earth.

Anonymous (Sent Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:10 PM)

Greg: Maybe we're so blase about millions of dollars being thrown around that it seems "shruggable". But I sure wonder how a small team goes through $20 million or more in roughly a year, and has nothing to show for it.

They passed some design reviews, and raised some money. That's actually not easy with such a difficult goal. I don't know the RpK details to know if it was well-spent, but I think one of the advantages of COTS is that the COTS companies and NASA don't have armies of accountants tracking every step. For COTS NASA doesn't care how many hours they spend on the program - they just care about results.

If it's true that noone is worried about the $20M, I think that's probably because only spending $20M while not coming up with a productive, safe, and economical system is a lot better than any other NASA space access/space transportation system effort since Apollo (excluding the SpaceX COTS effort).

Ares I/Orion may very well spend $20 *BILLION*, or much more, to come up with a system that has an excellent chance of never working, huge delays, safety issues as fault tolerant systems are removed because of weight problems, and/or huge expenses to maintain the system. That's where the focus of oversight and skepticism needs to be.

I'd suggest that it's in the taxpayers' (and even NASA's and the Shuttle workforce's) interest to take it easy with Ares I/Orion - slow down the contracts, think it over some more, focus solely on the lunar effort rather than that and ISS, trim the requirements like crew and payload numbers and sizes - and considerably increase the COTS funding to give private companies the ability to address the more near-term ISS cargo (and crew!) access problem without the mirrored armies of cost-plus accountants.

If you're worried about losing $20M again (I agree that it shouldn't be taken lightly), don't let the the COTS competitor get their hands on significant funding until they've demonstrated more technical and business success than RpK was able to when it got its early shots of funding.

If you're worried about the ability of private companies to handle the technical and organizational requirements of spaceflight, keep in mind that not only are the NewSpace companies private, but so are the big aerospace companies that run most of the NASA and other space missions. For example, existing EELVs can be part of ISS cargo (and maybe crew) solutions. What they don't have is the money, or if they have it the incentive to invest the money they have in this risky business.

red, Baltimore, MD (Sent Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:36 PM)

"maybe the Orion project of the 50's-60's should be revisited,now with the abudance of nukes sitting on shelves collecting dust."

Trust me, a country that has a hard time handling the idea of launching a probe with an RTG, containing one, non-weapons grade, well shielded against explosion and re-entry piece of plutonium, isn't going to have anything to do with a spacecraft that requires actual nuclear *detonations,* no matter what its performance.

Even if you build it in orbit first, I have visions of protestors chaining themselves to the vehicle that would carry the nuclear charges up to it.

Sadly, no matter how safe you make it, 'nuclear' has become another N-word. Logic and rationality vanishes whenever either one is uttered.

Frank Glover, Rocheter, NY (Sent Sunday, October 21, 2007 1:53 PM)

Red: Points taken. I absolutely concur that we should be asking for a lot more accountability across the board. I'm personally frustrated that NASA is taking such a strange approach to Ares / Orion / ESAS, when more reasonable Shuttle-Derived growth paths (including NASA's own Shuttle-C) have been proposed since before the Shuttle itself flew.

(See http://www.directlauncher.com for a more directly Shuttle-evolved alternative to the current scheme.)

On COTS, I'd argue that $20 million or so makes a lot more difference than the mainstream NASA effort. It means the next team has roughly 10% less to work with, and it means a breakthrough commercial system is that much further delayed.

Frank Glover: As someone who helped organize counter-demonstrations to those protesting Cassini in 1997, I definitely agree with you. New Horizons with its (smaller) RTG load might have run into the same thing, but Alan Stern was very smart in defusing things by being very upfront and non-argumentative about risks, and leaving it at that.

My experience is that nuclear brings such a knee-jerk reaction that habitual protesters simply hear it as a call to show up and be angry. It's almost like a call to having a block party. We saw great ignorance about the issues involved, and no willingness to hear the other side. But hey, it's "nuclear" - 'nuff said.

I think space nuclear will work only if we discover uranium on the moon, Mars or asteroids. Even then, I'm sure some people will go off the handle, no matter where such vehicles operate.

Greg Zsidisin, Casper, WY (Sent Monday, October 22, 2007 1:15 PM)

Frank Glover is right on. Nuclear, or nuclar, or however you might pronounce it, is a concept that most people abhor. It is also an idea whose time has come. Again. Chemical reaction will take us only so far, and becomes less and less reasonable as payloads increase in size and volume.

We are now finding out that the development of the A-bomb was occurring at the same time the Allies were well on the way to taking over Japan, but the dropping of the bomb was authorized mainly to impress the rest of the world, not necessarily to win the war. Since then, the public has been treated to pictures of tests in the desert, removal of atolls in the Pacific, the mushroom cloud scaring the bejeebers out of viewers, but never the possibility of a substitution of the energy in a few pounds of uranium for barrels and barrels and more barrels of oil.

Putting human ingenuity to work can place those fireworks behind the rocket and lift us into space.

Des Emery, St, Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:02 AM)

wonder what them ones in the space station will do when they end the shuttle and nothing ready to go bring them back yet? might be a long wait.
did you all ever read the book ,,"was it only a paper moon" if so ,is hard to believe we ever went there after reviewing the evidence.
and why dont they just build a road to the moon ,then we could drive our cars there. would only need gas to get there ,comming home would be all down hill and could coast! well,makes as much sense as the space program.

bob j klamath falls oregon (Sent Saturday, October 27, 2007 1:32 AM)

"Why are we wasting all this money to go into outer space when we have much more pressing concrens on Earth." - p scully

___________________________________________

Scully, your intentions are obviously good but scrapping one of the few technological investments the US still makes and is competitive in and instead funnelling that cash into the war machine or social programs really isn't going to fix anything.

As a proud parent of two children I want to see some of my taxpayer dollars going to constructive forward looking endeavors. I don't like the fact that my very taxes are wasted (approx 30%) on a defense budget which is 10 times the size of our nearest rival, and is squandered (never mind the lives) in foolish wars that result in little positive achievement.

I also question pouring more and more cash into social programs which are abused by the very people they are meant to motivate.

Space is an expensive business, just as it was expensive for the early colonialists to reach the New World, it will continue to be expensive for our civilization to make its baby steps beyond its womb, the Earth.

Nevertheless, this is important work. Important to America's technological development, important to our children in providing a positive direction for the country, and important to the human race in the long run. This planet only has a million years left before the Sun becomes a supernova - I for one would think it be a damned shame if we did nothing to preserve the work of our forefathers in assuring the permanence of humankind.

Alex, Philadelphia (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 3:36 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=418340

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG